51. Lim v.

CA
G.R. No. 91114 September 25, 1992

Topic: Disqualification by reason of privileged communication – Person authorized to practice Medicine and
patient
Facts:
Petitioner and private respondent are lawfully married to each other.
Juan Sim filed a petition for annulment of such marriage on the ground that petitioner has been
allegedly suffering from schizophrenia. One of the 3 witnesses presented was Dr. Lydia Acampado, a Doctor
of Medicine who specializes in Psychiatry.
Petitioner’s counsel filed an omnibus motion to quash the subpoena for Dr. Acampado on the
ground because such testimony sought is privileged since the latter had examined the petitioner in a
professional capacity and had diagnosed her to be suffering from schizophrenia. Counsel for private
respondent contended, that Dr. Acampado would be presented as an expert witness and would not testify
on any information acquired while attending to the petitioner in a professional capacity. Thus, the judge
denied the motion.
Dr. Acampado took the winess stand, was qualified by counsel for private respondent as an expert
witness and was asked hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise. She neither revealed the
illness she examined and treated the petitioner for nor disclosed the results of her examination and the
medicines she had prescribed. She only answered hypothetical questions related to her field of expertise.
Petitioner’s counsel filed a petition with the Court of Appeals for certiorari and prohibition to annul
the dismissal of the omnibus motion. It was denied because the petitioner failed to establish the
confidential nature of the testimony given by or obtained from Dr. Acampado when she testified on January
25, 1989. Thus, this case.

Issue: Whether the testimony of a physician-witness, not disclosing any information acquired while
attending to the petitioner-patient, is covered by the privileged communication.

Held: NO
"SECTION 24. Disqualification by reason of privileged communication. — The following persons
cannot testify as to matters learned in confidence in the following cases:
(c) A person authorized to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics cannot in a civil case, without the
consent of the patient, be examined as to any advice or treatment given by him or any information which
he may have acquired in attending such patient in a professional capacity, which information was necessary
to enable him to act in that capacity, and which would blacken the reputation of the patient."
Dr. Acampado’s expert opinion excluded whatever information or knowledge she had about the
petitioner which was acquired by reason of the physician-patient relationship existing between them. As an
expert witness, her testimony before the trial court cannot then be excluded.
The rule on this point is summarized as follows:
"The predominating view, with some scant authority otherwise, is that the statutory physician-patient
privilege, though duly claimed, is not violated by permitting a physician to give expert opinion testimony in
response to a strictly hypothetical question in a lawsuit involving the physical mental condition of a patient
whom he has attended professionally, where his opinion is based strictly upon the hypothetical facts
stated, excluding and disregarding any personal professional knowledge he may have concerning such
patient. But in order to avoid the bar of the physician-patient privilege where it is asserted in such a case,
the physician must base his opinion solely upon the facts hypothesized in the question, excluding from
consideration his personal knowledge of the patient acquired through the physician and patient
relationship. If he cannot or does not exclude from consideration his personal professional knowledge of
the patient’s condition he should not be permitted to testify as to his expert opinion."